RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comparing the reporting and conduct quality of exercise and pharmacological randomised controlled trials: a systematic review
JF BMJ Open
JO BMJ Open
FD British Medical Journal Publishing Group
SP e048218
DO 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048218
VO 11
IS 8
A1 Scott C Adams
A1 Julia McMillan
A1 Kirsten Salline
A1 Jessica Lavery
A1 Chaya S Moskowitz
A1 Konstantina Matsoukas
A1 Maggie M Z Chen
A1 Daniel Santa Mina
A1 Jessica M Scott
A1 Lee W Jones
YR 2021
UL http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/8/e048218.abstract
AB Objective Evaluate the quality of exercise randomised controlled trial (RCT) reporting and conduct in clinical populations (ie, adults with or at risk of chronic conditions) and compare with matched pharmacological RCTs.Design Systematic review.Data sources Embase (Elsevier), PubMed (NLM) and CINAHL (EBSCO).Study selection RCTs of exercise in clinical populations with matching pharmacological RCTs published in leading clinical, medical and specialist journals with impact factors ≥15.Review methods Overall RCT quality was evaluated by two independent reviewers using three research reporting guidelines (ie, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT; pharmacological RCTs)/CONSORT for non-pharmacological treatments; exercise RCTs), CONSORT-Harms, Template for Intervention Description and Replication) and two risk of bias assessment (research conduct) tools (ie, Cochrane Risk of Bias, Jadad Scale). We compared research reporting and conduct quality within exercise RCTs with matched pharmacological RCTs, and examined factors associated with quality in exercise and pharmacological RCTs, separately.Findings Forty-eight exercise RCTs (11 658 patients; median sample n=138) and 48 matched pharmacological RCTs were evaluated (18 501 patients; median sample n=160). RCTs were conducted primarily in cardiovascular medicine (43%) or oncology (31%). Overall quality score (composite of all research reporting and conduct quality scores; primary endpoint) for exercise RCTs was 58% (median score 46 of 80; IQR: 39–51) compared with 77% (53 of 68; IQR: 47–58) in the matched pharmacological RCTs (p≤0.001). Individual quality scores for trial reporting and conduct were lower in exercise RCTs compared with matched pharmacological RCTs (p≤0.03). Factors associated with higher overall quality scores for exercise RCTs were journal impact factor (≥25), sample size (≥152) and publication year (≥2013).Conclusions and relevance Research reporting and conduct quality within exercise RCTs is inferior to matched pharmacological RCTs. Suboptimal RCT reporting and conduct impact the fidelity, interpretation, and reproducibility of exercise trials and, ultimately, implementation of exercise in clinical populations.PROSPERO registration number CRD42018095033.All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplemental information.